Dear Piotr and Nostraticists:

 

 

----- Original Message -----
From: Piotr Gasiorowski
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 4:23 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE

 
----- Original Message -----
From: proto-language
To: nostratic@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, May 20, 2001 7:12 PM
Subject: Re: [nostratic] AA-IE
 
<snipping the ad hominem here and in what follows; let me only say that I'm genuinely interested in Nostratic studies and if I see my role on this list as the devil's advocate among partisans of Nostratic, it is not out of contempt for anything or anybody, but in the interest of maintaining a healthy balance of opinion>.... </snip>
 
> For argument, I mentioned that IE roots are canonically CVC- (Kurylowicz would turn in his grave to think that *g^enH- was being put forward by you as an IE root) with only a few exceptions for *shorter* function words, and that *g^enH- must be interpreted as CVC+H-. Accordingly, it cannot be the root --- even if all attested forms pointed unequivocally to *g^enH- as their basis.
 
> Now, a question to Piotr: do you believe that some IE roots have the form CVCC? Do you dispute the idea that all (with the exception noted above) IE roots have the form CVC?
 
Yes, I dispute it. By the way, it's Benveniste's idea of "root", not Kurylowicz's.
 
 
[PCR]
Misunderstood again. I was referring to Kurylowicz's 1927 proof that the CVC structure for roots like *(s)ta:- was found as /h/ in Hittite.
 
And why can you not maintain the labels I insert so that others can easily follow who is speaking?
 
[PG]
 For me, the root is primarily a synchronic concept -- the unanalysable central morpheme of a word, not a "primitive form" in the diachronic or glottogenetic sense. Canonical roots are analytic artifacts. Of course you can insists that any morpheme of the form CVRC _must_ be analysed into CVR+C or whatever your preconceived idea of "canonical" forms. I prefer not to insist on such divisions if there is no independent evidence of the shorter forms. For example, I treat *leuk- or *derk^- as roots, since there is no reason (other than a Procrustean love of invariable shapes) to segment them into *leu-k- or *der-k^-. There are lots of languages permitting C(C)V(R)C morphemes, so why shouldn't PIE have been one of them?
[PCR]
Well, I am glad you said "for you". "For me", I reject your preferences.
 
The overwhelming number of CVCC roots in IE can be analyzed as CVC+C. It is therefore probable that any root of the form CVCC whether one of the finals C's be a resonant or a 'laryngeal', has an underlying CVC basis.
 
One of the purposes of Nostratic studies is to elucidate problems like *leuk-, 'shine'. We have Arabic lâja, 'shine'. If IE and Semitic are both derived from Nostratic, then to explain these forms we would have to posit a Nostratic *law-. Actually, though, I believe the underlying *lew- exists in IE as *le:w-, 'pebble', which I suggest is probably 'shiny thing'.
 
> I offered Old Indian jánati. This word does *not* require *g^enH- as its basis; it can be derived very nicely from *g^en-; and therefore proves my contention that howevermany words might be derived from *g^enH-, there is every reason to believe that some were derived from *g^en-, which validates the general CVC-rule for IE roots.
 
[PG]
It is a circular speculation, not a general rule. It is not the "standard theory" of IE word-formation either.
 
[PCR]
There you are wrong, I think. Most eminent IEists susscribe to a Benvenistean CVC scheme for IE.
 
[PG]
 The reconstruction *g^enh1- has the advantage of sufficiently explaining all the PIE derivatives of the root (including, crucially, its characteristic nil grade). The environments in which *g^en- seems to be a possible analysis are prevocalic (here, of course, the loss of *h1 leaves no traces). Preconsonantally, *h1 is systematically reflected in the "diagnostic" branches.
[PCR]
I can see no advantage for *g^enH- at all. And *H is certainly not "prevocalic" if *H was not a part of the root. The superior explanation is that the simplex is *g^en-, and *g^enH- (better *geneH-) represents the root plus a root extension, which I equate with Nostratic -[?], which forms statives.
 
 
> Piotr misrepresents what he did. He mentioned a number of Slavic forms that may or may not be related to zrak, having to do with 'shine'.
 
> In Pokorny, these words are derived from 3. *g^her-. Pokorny also has 2. *g^her-, 'scratch, scrape', just before it. Obviously, zrak could just as easily be derived from 2. as from 3. *g^her-, which, in effect, is what I am suggesting.
 
[PG]
First, let me assure you that the forms I gave _are_ related to <zrák>. The Czech word is not an isolated relict that could be interpreted "just as easily" any odd way, but a member of a large word-family. Its cognates occur so densely in Slavic, and all the historical stages of semantic shifts that have affected them are so well documented, that there can be no mistake.
[PCR]
Well, demonstrate it instead of talking about it. I maintain, until shown otherwise, that zrak could as easily stem from 2. *g^her- as from 3. *g^her-.
 
> Piotr asserts what he should attempt to prove when he says: "I also explained the origin of related Slavic forms and their meaning." What Piotr did was to cite some words that *may* be related but are not necessarily related.His explanation is just speculation!
 
> Now I do not claim to know much about Slavic linguistics. But I have a Russian dictionary that lists Russian zarosl6, 'underbrush, thicket', that looks to me as if it might be a reflex of 2. *g^her-. But I will not insist on it. I simply do not know.
 
[PG]
That you don't know much about Slavic is evident. <zarosl'> = {za+rost+l'}. The root here is {rost-} < Proto-Slavic *orst- 'grow', and {za-} is a prefix of prepositional origin.
[PCR]
And that you are a rude boor is also evident.
 
 
> I cited an example, Greek gennáo:, 'I beget (said of a father)'.  Regardless of what Piotr's Polish dictionary may say, my dictionary "Liddell-Hart", says "BEGET".
 
Why should a Polish dictionary be inferior to Liddel & Hart? But those interested in what the latter have to say may check this link for themselves:
 
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0057%3Aentry%3D%2321902
 
[PCR]
A Polish dictionary would be inferior to Liddell-Hart because only Poles would read it.
 
 
As you will see, the verb may refer to either parent, and when it is used of the father, the quotations given show that "to beget" in this context means simply "to father" and does not focus on the physical process that leads to becoming a father.
 
[PCR]
The link you provide says the word means 'beget (mostly of the father)'. And what do you think the normal meaning of 'to father' is in English?: "father, v. 1. to beget" AHD. Why do you keep insisting about 'beget'. Its primary meaning in English is 'successfully impregnate'. And this is the primary meaning of gennao: as your own sources tells you. Listen to it.
> Piotr claims that this root is a denominal verb: "Actually, it is a denominal verb, from <genna:> 'birth, origin', hence its rather general meaning.
 
> If Piotr thinks *g^enna:- is a PIE form, I beg to differ.
 
PIE? I mean Greek <genna:>, from which <gennao:> is derived: 
 
 
[PCR]
gennao: is not derived from genna:.
 
> [Piotr]  asserted that Sumerian tu(d) meant 'beget'. I told him that it probably meant simply 'bear' (female aspect of the process), and cited reasons to believe that.
 
> He returned by impugning my ability to interpret the Sumerian data; and I assert for the record that Piotr has no idea what training I have had in Sumerology. He just wanted to denigrate my interpretation.
 
> I showed him that Thomsen, an authority whom HE cites, seems to agree by defining tud in her grammar as "Thomsen defines tud as 'to bear, to fashion' on pg. 320 of her grammar. Sorry for you but no 'to beget'."
 
> Piotr passes that by in silence because, I believe, he has only heard the name Thomsen, and never read her book. If he has, he is very forgetful.
 
It seems what we really disagree about is the precise meaning of "beget". You concentrate on the physiological aspect ("emitting semen into a vagina") and I on the abstract relation ("becoming the father of"). Naturally, the latter can't happen without the former in the physical world, but that doesn't mean that the "physiological" meaning is older or more fundamental than the "relational" one, or that the two meanings are not lexically separable.
 
[PCR]
Of course it does. Our earliest ancestors, being much more sensible than we in some ways, concentrated on concrete reality not abstractions. For them, Nostratic *k?en^w- certainly only meant the physical act and subsequent impregnation.
 
[PG]
 What I said in the first place was that the meaning of Sumerian tu(d) was roughly the same as of PIE *g^enh1-. It so happens that meanings like 'bear' or 'produce' are covered by the latter. Curiously, at your site you refer visitors to John Halloran's "Sumerian Lexicon". Whatever its merits, it gives "to beget" as one of the senses of <tu(d)>.
[PCR]
I refer people there because I know of no better source on the net. That does not mean I agree with John on every detail. And on this one, I do not.
 
> Anyone who questions whether words derived from a verb 'plait' can serve as a basis for words meaning 'basket' really should be doing something other than comparative work.
 
> And yet, Piotr questioned whether OHG kratto, 'basket', could be derived from IE *ger-, 'plait'. He asks for evidence from other branches: I gave him Old Indian gárta-H, 'wagon-seat', which we know were made of withe. He ignores it.
 
> I doubt that Northern Europe needed to borrow a word for wickerwork from the invading Romans since burning people in baskets was one of their favorite pastimes.
 
> Latin cra:tis, 'wickerwork', comes from another IE root, *ker-t-. One has nothing to do with the other. Since we have OHG hurd-, why would they have needed to borrow anyhthing.
 
With the same logic, <egg> cannot be an Old Norse loanword, since the Anglo-Saxons had eggs prior to Scandinavian settlement in England, and <eagle> cannot have been borowed from Old French, because there have always been eagles in Britain. I simply asked for solid evidence. You provided two forms without as much as attempting to analyse them. You think in terms of roots -- that is, you match consonantal skeletons and ask no further questions if they seem to fit. I'm more interested in details like ablaut grades and derivational processes. Do you claim that Old Indic garta- is related to OHG kratto? OK, but _just how_ are they related? what sort of derivatives are they? You seem to be saying "Germanic kr- matches Indic gar- and the rest be damned". Well, it doesn't happen to be my favourite approach. I accept that two words are related if I understand the nature of the relation.
 
[PCR]
What you think are essentials, are actually insignificant details. Root extensions come and go but the CVC roots of IE had a very long life.
 
In AA, there would be no question that CVC roots were primary. And I believe that it can be conclusively demonstrated that IE and Semitic both derive from Nostratic. I say Semitic because the larger groupings (Hamito-Semitic and Afrasian, etc.) have been a terrible bust, mainly because the other speakers in the presumed group were illiterate until recently, and because we still do not have adequate materials for really good lexicons not to mention comparative studies.
 
> Piotr also asserts that the sequence s-k-r is iconic.
 
> If words beginning with skr- in a number of languages have to do with 'scratching, scoring' etc. it is because they are s-mobile forms of roots with, without the s-, meant 'scratching, scoring', etc.
 
I wouldn't say that iconic words cannot have ordinary etymologies. My point is that, being iconic, they follow their own patterns of development (note, for example, the almost general dispalatalisation of OE scr- in "scratchy" verbs) and are of weak evidential value in linguistic comparison, let alone _distant_ comparison. The etyma you refer to are notoriously irregular, involving numerous variants: *(s)ker-, *skrebH-, *skrob-, *skorb-, *gerbH-, *gHrebH-, and the like. The common denominator is the phonetic makeup rather than a shared underlying root (though *ker-, for one, _is_ a bona fide PIE morpheme).
[PCR]
Well, I disagree. I do not care if skr- is or is not iconic, for comparative purposes it is the result of s + -*k(h)er- and -*g(h)er-. And what is so troubling about variants?
 
 
> So, that is Piotr's argument. Evidently, poor mortals looking at Pokorny, simply cannot get the right idea. It takes special training.
 
Sorry, but it's true. You can't learn PIE from Pokorny. You need some training and a lot of practice.
 
> So, let me ask since I can defer to the magister: what formal training in IE linguistics have you had, Piotr?
 
I have had some at academic level. I got my PhD for work in historical linguistics. I teach historical phonology and the history of English at Poznan University in Poland.
 
 
[PCR]
Well, more impressive than I had expected.
 
 
 
 
 Pat
 

PATRICK C. RYAN | PROTO-LANGUAGE@...
(501) 227-9947 * 9115 W. 34th St. Little Rock, AR 72204-4441 USA
WEBPAGES: PROTO-LANGUAGE: http://www.geocities.com/proto-language/
and PROTO-RELIGION:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2803/proto-religion/indexR.html

"Veit ec at ec hecc, vindgá meiði a netr allar nío,
geiri vndaþr . . . a þeim meiþi, er mangi veit,
hvers hann af rótom renn." (Hávamál 138)